Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Wingnut Dictionary – Libertine

Translating Wingnutspeak into good ol' American English.

Word of the Day:

Libertine or Libertines

\li-bər-tēn\ or \li-bər-tēnz\


Within Right Wing counter culture the term is attributed to self identified Libertarians who are deemed insufficiently deferential to the historical values, customs, and traditions passed from one generation to the next, that establish a perception of society’s cultural identity. Instead, Libertines believe that custom and laws based upon historical cultural norms have a tendency to impinge on individual liberty, especially freedom of thought and action. Libertines, like a majority of libertarians tend to view individual liberty through a narrow prism of individual rights while de-emphasizing individual responsibility to community or society. Opposition to Taxation and Government Regulation occupy approximately 99% of Libertine ideology.
Used in every day Right Wing conservation:
Maybe had the libertarians done a better job of preventing their party from being overrun with Libertines — a group of people who couldn’t care less about the size and scope of government as long as their desires for one night stands with a bag of weed and a tranny from 7th and Broadway are unimpeded by government — we wouldn’t be having these issues within the conservative movement.


There is a natural dissonance between Utopian Libertine Ideology and so-called social Conservatism. Early American Political Philosophy developed a correlation between rights and responsibilities. For example: a White Male Citizen had the right to bear arms, because he also had a corresponding duty to service in the community Militia. Understandings of Rights and Duties were interrelated. Current Libertine Ideology, however, emphasizes individual liberty while largely rejecting corresponding duties owed to society. Within so-called Social Conservatism, historical values, customs, and traditions that establish the majority’s perception of society’s cultural identity are seen as absolute and citizens have a duty to act within those norms – even if such action infringes upon individual liberty.

In the example provided above, the speaker, is critical of allowing the participation of a same sex advocacy group at a conservative gathering. Even though the advocacy group largely shares the Speakers political ideology, it does desire some policy outcomes which increase individual liberty (equality under the law for members of the GLBT community) but conflict with normative perceptions of society’s cultural identity (a prejudice against members of this community). Thus the advocacy group is labeled “Libertine.”

[h/t] –RedState Blog

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Marc Thiessen adopts Marxist view of History

Translation of the day - Wingnutspeak to English.

Why should a Wingnutopian argue in favor of increasing the difficulties in the lives of ordinary Americans? Marc Thiessen has an answer for you.

He’s a Neoconservative after all, and they evolved from Karl Marx’s family tree. I guess it shouldn’t be a surprise that this apple didn’t fall far from the tree. Here is Thiessen explaining why Republicans should not work with Democrats to make the Affordable Care Act more user friendly for their constituents:

Obama made what appeared to be a stunning admission in his State of the Union address, when he acknowledged that his sainted health-care law needs a little work. […] "Instead of re-fighting the battles of the last two years, let's fix what needs fixing and let's move forward."

It was a brilliant political maneuver. The president knows that his health-care law remains unpopular and that it was a driving force behind the historic losses Democrats suffered in the 2010 elections. So to protect vulnerable Democrats in 2012 (including himself) and blunt the GOP's push toward full repeal, the president is seeking to enlist the Republicans in helping him "fix" the flaws in Obamacare.

Senate Republicans have seized on his offer. Last week, they helped Democrats pass legislation repealing the provision Obama mentioned - a mandate that businesses file "1099" reports to IRS for all transactions of more than $600 in a given year. This provision had small businesses across the country up in arms. But instead of harnessing that anger to push for full repeal, Republicans instead helped Democrats lift this source of pressure from the business community.

Like all good utopian revolutionaries, in Thiessen’s case, a wingnutopian revolutionary, Thiessen knows that the coming revolution will only occur when Real Americans (the wingnuttariat) realize their true class cultural interest lies with Free Market Fundamentalism, the unfettered Free Market. Once Class Cultural Consciousness is achieved, the wingnuttariat will rise up and dismantle the federal government and the social safety net creating a free market paradise. In short, the wingnuttariat needs to be really outraged by the government and the social safety net in order to understand that its true class cultural interest lies with the free and unfettered market almighty and not with the National government. Anything that softens the effects of the social safety net and the effect of government regulation of the health insurance sector is counterrevolutionary, i.e., it impedes the revolution, delaying it indefinitely.

As a good disciple of his intellectual father Marx, Thiessen know this and bemoans the fact that Republicans have agreed to make the new health insurance law more user friendly. This is counterrevolutionary. This Republican action delays the revolution. Thiessen understands and continues in softer tones:

Republicans need to understand that there is no path to repealing Obamacare "plank by plank." Here is why: First, while Democrats will agree to peripheral changes, they will never allow the GOP to repeal the core provisions that make Obamacare such a monstrosity - such as the individual mandate, insurance mandates and employer mandates. All Republicans will end up doing is helping Democrats sweeten the hemlock, thus undermining their case for full repeal.

Second, Republicans will hand the Democrats a huge public relations victory. As more "fixes" like the 1099 repeal are adopted, the president and Democratic leaders will portray themselves as the reasonable ones who have acknowledged flaws in their law and are working to address them in bipartisan manner. Meanwhile Republicans who continue to push for full repeal will be portrayed as strident hard-liners who care more about delivering a political blow to the president than helping Americans get better health care.

Third, Republicans will inadvertently help vulnerable Democrats get reelected. Sixteen Senate Democrats up for reelection this year voted for the 1099 repeal - and endangered Democratic incumbents are almost certain to support other similar measures in the period ahead. This will allow them to claim on the campaign trail that they are working to "repeal" the worst parts of Obamacare while keeping the parts of the law that Americans support.

In this manner, Thiessen explains that while doing what is in their constituents’ immediate interest, Republicans are actually doing more harm than good. Helping constituents is undesirable, if the net effect is to make the health insurance law more user friendly. When the needs of their constituents are served, the revolution of the wingnuttariat is delayed. If the people are not angry they will not achieve class cultural consciousness. And without the class cultural consciousness of the Wingnuttariat, the creation of a free market paradise based on big business, bullets, banjos, and the bible (certain portions only) may never be achieved.

In Thiessen’s view, it would never be good to help Americans, at the expense of a greater good.